Poland

01EMFA compliance since the 2025 report

On the surface, one of the most critical developments was the government’s draft media law (UC130), introduced for consultation in early December 2025 and then subject to public consultation until January 23, 2026². In a submission to the public consultation, IPI with media freedom partners assessed that the draft act to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act overall represented a positive but incomplete initiative to reform Polish media legislation in line with EMFA³. The timetable for passing the law through the Sejm (the lower chamber of Poland’s parliament) has shifted several times, from spring 2026 to later announcements suggesting that the new regulations would be processed before the parliamentary summer recess in late July 2026.⁴

By October 2026, however, the draft had still not been sent to the Sejm: it remained with the government’s Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers, amid a dispute between the finance and culture ministries over the proposed PLN 2.5 billion a year in state funding for public media.⁵

The EMFA and media regulation remain contested political issues in the broader conflict between the governing centre-left coalition and the conservative opposition, with the President of the Republic representing the latter camp and using his veto power on several government legislative initiatives. However, in June 2026 the President signed the law introducing strong protections against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), providing some hope for reform⁶. Political tensions are particularly relevant when considering the response of the media regulator (Krajowa Rada Radiofonii i Telewizji, KRRiT) to the draft media law. In fact, the KRRiT has argued that some of the proposed changes could weaken rather than strengthen its independence and that the draft does not fully address certain requirements arising from the EMFA⁷. Given that both the media regulator and the public service media in liquidation remain at the centre of a broader institutional and political conflict, the media capture assessments should be considered in the context of the respective actors and their interests.

Regulatory AuthorityAVMSD Art. 30

The most significant development under the proposed law concerns the introduction of regulatory mechanisms to support KRRiT’s independence, something that has never fully been made a reality. The new draft seeks to address longstanding concerns over political influence by modifying KRRiT’s composition, appointments and terms. Proposed changes include, for example, rotational membership mechanisms, more detailed professional and independence requirements for candidates, and a requirement for candidates to demonstrate support from organisations representing journalists and other media stakeholders. As part of the ongoing media law reform, the government has also proposed abolishing the current mechanism linking the rejection of the annual report submitted to Parliament to the potential dismissal of all KRRiT members.

In April 2026, the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson) expressed doubts about whether the additional safeguards contained in UC130 would sufficiently ensure KRRiT’s independence from external actors. IPI’s assessment also raised concerns in this area⁸. The Ombudsperson also questioned aspects of the proposed shortening of the current Council’s term and some of the eligibility requirements for KRRiT members⁹. In short, there is still no broadly accepted institutional arrangement following changes in parliamentary and governmental majorities.

Public Service MediaEMFA Art. 5

The institutional framework for public service media remains unsettled. The PSM companies, Telewizja Polska (TVP), Polskie Radio (PR) and the regional radio broadcasters, continue to operate in liquidation and rely on a combination of licence-fee revenues and substantial state-budget financing. In its 2026 Rule of Law Report the European Commission has expressed concern about the continuation of this arrangement, including the Minister of Culture’s direct appointment of liquidators¹⁰. The UC130 draft media law proposes a governance framework that would strengthen the existing programme councils, establish a clearer separation between editorial and managerial structures, dissolve the National Media Council and return responsibility for appointing public broadcasters’ management boards to KRRiT. IPI has broadly welcomed this institutional redesign.¹¹ However, the effectiveness of these safeguards will depend substantially on whether KRRiT itself becomes institutionally independent.

As in previous media capture reports, PSM funding also remains an ongoing challenge. While the government proposes replacing the licence-fee model with direct state-budget financing, this creates a new requirement for strong safeguards against annual political bargaining over the public funds allocated to public service media. The current KRRiT regards the liquidation process as a “legal fiction” rather than a genuine process, and argues that public broadcasters have become financially dependent on government budget allocations.¹² In contrast, the government presents the proposed funding reform as a means of establishing a stable replacement for an ineffective licence-fee system.

Misuse of State FundsEMFA Art. 25

Previous media capture reports identified state advertising as one of Poland’s capture vulnerabilities, because safeguards to ensure the transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory distribution of public/state advertising are lacking.

The 2026 reform process in Poland needs to be assessed not only according to the existence of new formal requirements, but also on whether information on state–media financial relations becomes comprehensive and accessible enough to permit effective public scrutiny. The overall media transparency assessment reveals a blend of formal transparency and structural secrecy, making it difficult to access, find and trace both ownership and financial data¹³.

The UC130 draft media law proposes introducing rules governing the distribution of state advertising, including requirements for public bodies to establish and publish transparent allocation criteria and disclose information about advertising recipients and expenditure. The draft also addresses a publicly accessible database by the KRRiT, containing information on media ownership and public advertising expenditure. According to the draft these rules would extend beyond government ministries to include state-controlled companies and local government entities.

Media Pluralism and Political InfluenceEMFA Art. 6 & 22

Ownership and market pluralism also remain vulnerable. The Media Pluralism Monitor 2026 classifies market plurality in Poland as medium-high risk, including very high risk for the plurality of media providers and high risk for editorial independence from commercial and ownership influence.¹⁴ Several structural cases remain unresolved. Since January 1, 2025 TVN and Polsat continue to be classified as strategic companies, meaning that changes in their ownership require state approval. At the same time, Polska Press, one of the country’s largest regional newspaper groups, remains controlled by the state-owned energy company PKN Orlen, despite previous announcements concerning its eventual sale and criticism over media capture by the previous government.

The UC130 draft media legislation gives KRRiT expanded responsibilities for assessment and an advisory role on media pluralism. This could improve oversight, but once again its effectiveness depends on the regulator possessing sufficient independence, resources and professional capacity. The concentration of additional EMFA-related functions in a regulator whose institutional independence remains contested therefore represents both an opportunity and a potential systemic vulnerability.

02Has the situation improved?

03Outstanding problems

Media regulatorsAVMSD Art. 30

KRRiT’s independence has never been fully secured, and its conservative majority is in open conflict with the government. UC130 would change its composition, appointments and terms and remove the link between rejection of its annual report and dismissal, but the Ombudsperson doubts the safeguards are sufficient, and the draft would give the regulator new powers before its independence is settled.

Public service mediaEMFA Art. 5

TVP, Polskie Radio and the regional broadcasters remain in liquidation, with liquidators appointed directly by the Minister of Culture and funding from licence fees and substantial state-budget transfers. The planned move to direct budget financing, stalled by a dispute over its cost, would need strong safeguards against annual political bargaining.

Misuse of state fundsEMFA Art. 25

Safeguards for the transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory distribution of state advertising are still lacking, and ownership and financial data remain hard to trace. UC130 would require public bodies to disclose state advertising expenditure, including the media recipients and amounts allocated, and make this information publicly accessible. No reform in this area has been adopted.

Ownership transparency and pluralismEMFA Art. 6 & 22

The Media Pluralism Monitor 2026 rates the plurality of media providers at very high risk. Polska Press remains owned by state-controlled Orlen despite announcements of its sale, and TVN and Polsat remain classified as strategic companies whose ownership changes require state approval. The regulator’s planned role in assessing pluralism depends on its independence.